ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE CERCLA

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Docs. 74, 79, 82. The parties have submitted briefs concerning the motions, but after a review of those briefs and the record, the Court finds it necessary to request supplemental briefing from the parties on certain issues.

Specifically, the Court requests further information (primarily from Plaintiff) regarding the basis for Plaintiff's claim under California's Polanco Redevelopment Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 33459-33459.8 ("the Polanco Act"). As the parties explain in their briefs, there are two routes in which a "responsible party" may be liable under the Polanco Act: (1) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") (42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)1); and (2) under § 13304(a) of the California Water Code ("§ 13304(a)"). See City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.4th 28, 34 (2004).

Plaintiff indisputably asserts Defendants are "responsible parties" under § 13304(a) for Polanco Act purposes. See, e.g., Doc. 101 at 18-22. But whether Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are "responsible parties" under CERCLA is unclear, as is the basis for the assertion. Although Plaintiff states its position that Defendants are "responsible parties under the CERCLA definition of covered parties" in the table of contents of its opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see id. at 2, the heading is absent in the body of the brief, and the basis for that assertion is not supported nor explained in any detail in the brief. Plaintiff's only mention of CERCLA concerns its position that a prior California state court ruling should not have preclusive effect in this case because it did not address CERCLA. See id. at 22-23 ("Since the CERCLA based definition of responsible party is unique to the Polanco Act, the legal issue of whether defendants were responsible parties under CERCLA was not the subject of defendants' motion in the City of Merced case."); see also Doc. 103 at 11 (same).

Defendants claim that Plaintiff's "CERCLA argument is a red herring" because Plaintiff is not proceeding on its Polanco Act claim on the theory that Defendants are "responsible parties" under CERCLA. Doc. 107 at 12. Thus, in spite of Plaintiff's apparent suggestion that it is proceeding on a CERCLA-based theory of Defendants' liability, Defendants do not consider Plaintiff to be proceeding on that basis.

Simply put, if Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendants on a CERCLA-based theory of Polanco Act liability, the claim is unsupported and not clearly articulated. The Court therefore requires more information from the parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental brief (with appropriate authority and record support) on or before January 21, 2014, not to exceed ten pages in length, addressing the following:

Defendants may submit a responsive brief, not to exceed ten pages in length, on or before January 28, 2014. Unless and until ordered otherwise, no replies are authorized.

IT IS SO ORDERED.